By EditorZambia
As Zambia heads toward the August general election, the desperation within the Patriotic Front (PF) has reached a disturbing new low.
A sponsored video and pictures circulating online that depicted President Hakainde Hichilema lying in a coffin is not satire. Neither is it robust political debate but a chilling expression of hatred and political decay that should disqualify its sponsors from seeking public office. 
This is not an isolated incident but a sick gimmick that has been part and parcel of the PF. One would expect the PF faction leaders Given Lubinda, Makebi Zulu, Binwell Mpundu, and Brian Mundubile to outrightly condemn and disassociate themselves from such negative cyber politics. Instead, the PF leadership finds political mileage in such a narrative.
On October 19, during the tenure of former President Edgar Lungu, a coffin was paraded at a rally in mockery of President Hichilema, who was the main opposition political leader at the time.
The spectacle unfolded in full view of the then Head of State, President Lungu, who made no move to restrain the cadres responsible. No public rebuke followed.
That moment revealed something dark within the PF political culture. It normalised the dehumanisation of an opponent and signaled that contempt could replace civility in national discourse.
Today, history appears to be repeating itself. A quartet of PF leaders including Brian Mundubile, Given Lubinda, Makebi Zulu and Binwell Mpundu and many others, are faced yet another video and pictures that once again portrays President Hichilema in a coffin. There is no doubt that these pictures and video clips are initiated by the PF faction groups.
Whether they deny direct authorship or not, the political environment they have cultivated makes such content possible and even predictable. It is the politics of resentment, grievance, and vengeance.
Zambians must ask themselves a simple question. Is this the conduct of leaders fit to govern a diverse and democratic nation? Elections are contests of ideas. There are many platforms to present alternative policies to debate constitutional reforms, critique governance records, and persuade citizens. Political platforms should never be used as theatres for rehearsing death fantasies about political opponents.
Significantly, condemnation of the coffin imagery has not come only from ruling party sympathisers. A young Zambian politician, writer, contractor, public administrator and consultant Frackson Chanoda Ngwira, who openly admits that he is one of President Hichilema’s critics and a PF member, has strongly rebuked the trend.
Ngwira said that while citizens may disagree with the Republican President on policy and governance issues, no one should reach the stage of wishing him dead. He implored Zambians to draw a moral line in political contestation.
“We can differ with our Republican President on many issues,” Ngwira observed, “but we should not reach the extent of what I have seen on social media posting the President in a coffin.”
He described such conduct as bad and primitive politics that undermines the country’s democratic credentials.
According to Ngwira, he was so disturbed by the image that he could not even repost it on his platforms because it was in bad taste and contrary to the values of respectful political engagement.
His intervention is telling. When even a self-declared critic of President Hichilema and the UPND refuses to endorse or circulate such imagery, it underscores just how extreme and indefensible the coffin narrative is.
The desperation is palpable because the PF has struggled to recalibrate since losing power in 2021. Instead of introspection, renewal, and a credible policy platform, what the public is witnessing is a regression into theatrics and ethnic mobilisation. The circulation of a coffin video is not strength. It is the last refuge of a movement that has run out of arguments.
The debate around Bill 7 has further exposed the undercurrents shaping opposition politics. On the surface, critics framed their resistance in the language of constitutional principle.Yet the pattern of hostility towards President Hichilema and the UPND suggests deeper anxieties at play.
When political contestation repeatedly descends into ethnic insinuation and coded hostility, it ceases to be about clauses and amendments. It becomes about who is deemed entitled to lead.
Since the formation of the UPND in 1998, the party has faced attacks that often transcend policy critique. The persistence of Tongaphobia in sections of political discourse is an uncomfortable reality that can not be ignored.
It is not tribal to name tribalism. It is not divisive to call out hatred. On the contrary, silence in the face of such hostility entrenches it.
Zambia’s history offers context. From the marginalisation of Harry Nkumbula to the political tensions surrounding the Choma Declaration in 1973, regional suspicion has long haunted national politics.
The demonisation of Southern Province as politically suspect did not begin yesterday. The UPND inherited these prejudices at birth. Those who branded it tribal often projected their own insecurities about shifting political power.
The opposition politics to Bill 7 reflected striking regional patterns. Many of its most vocal parliamentary critics hail from the North/Eastern and Luapula axis. That concentration has fuelled perceptions that the debate was less about constitutional refinement and more about a perceived loss of political dominance by a long-entrenched clique. When such anxieties are left unaddressed, they mutate into symbolic acts of hostility such as coffin mockery.
The ethical issue is straightforward. No citizen, regardless of party affiliation, should be dehumanised on the basis of identity. No leader seeking national office should tolerate or encourage narratives that fantasise about the death of opponents.
Democracy requires losing gracefully as much as winning convincingly. It requires recognising the legitimacy of those elected, even when one disagrees with them.
By sponsoring or condoning such imagery, the PF leaders send a message that they are prepared to inflame passions rather than cool them. Zambia can not afford a return to politics defined by intimidation and spectacle. Investors, development partners, and ordinary citizens alike watch the tone of political discourse as a measure of national stability. A movement that trades in coffin symbolism projects instability and intolerance.
August presents voters with a choice not only between parties but between political cultures. One culture accepts electoral defeat and reorganises around ideas. The other clings to grievance and dramatises hatred. The coffin video is not merely tasteless. It is revealing. It exposes a strain of politics that prefers character assassination to constructive engagement.
If the PF leaders believe they are ready to govern again, they must demonstrate maturity, restraint, and a commitment to national unity. So far, the evidence suggests otherwise. Zambia deserves an opposition that sharpens governance through credible alternatives, not one that undermines democratic norms through macabre theatrics.
The ballot in August will not only determine who governs. It will signal what kind of politics Zambians are prepared to endorse. A party like the PF that normalises mock funerals for rivals disqualifies itself morally from leading a republic founded on human dignity and constitutional order.
Isn’t it ironic that the Church is also silent on this matter. Where are the church leaders who are always quick and promptly quoted in condemning the new dawn government on every assumed wrongdoing? Yet, the church is ever quick in its defence of the opposition politics?
